.jpg)
Seemingly far-fetched approach to be acknowledged and adopted by many city administrations across hierarchy and geography, which are accustomed to a classical, structured, and long lifecycle approach of planning, urban management and development, and economic growth.
To set a pretext, a hashtag#Vision2030 document published 5 to 10 years ago (in any domain) and to continue with that in toto, without factoring in hashtag#AI, which is a midway disruptive phenomenon, that too without a total grasp of its actual potential and impact; doesn’t make sense. Likewise, a Resilience Plan 2030 prepared in a pre-pandemic time or without accounting for a range of geopolitical shifts witnessed in recent and ongoing years, and continuing with the script in its original form doesn't make sense either. Similarly, half a decade or a decade-long rare drug discovery or targeted medicine development pathway approved in 2020, may witness a radical reduction in time due to the advent of AI, reducing years of trial, testing, and customization time to hours and minutes, hence requiring original pathways to be revisited.
Conventionally there is too much resistance and bureaucratic and legal hurdles present there by design, to make it nearly impossible to change or overhaul long-range vision documents, and action plans once published.
AI is just an example, too potent to ignore though; the cyclical period of disruptive innovations and socio-technological changes seem to be reducing and sometimes unpredictable, and such periods are bound to reduce if compared historically, due to unprecedented, exponential, and unfathomable technological advancement. The conventional approach of 10, 20, and 30-year-long, fairly rigid structures of plans and visions has to change. It has to be agile by design, it has to have inbuilt provisions for tweak, restructuring, and even overhaul, if required and this has to be done without fear of public criticism, and to be backed by science.
Every kind of projection based on which a long-range vision document and action plans are usually prepared must also be revisited periodically by embedded provisions, to reconsider and accommodate the known and perceptible impacts and opportunities that surface due to disruptive forces, often technological.
It was a norm 50 years ago, and was ok 5 years ago to prepare an urban development plan, economic plan, vision plan, etc for a 20 to 30-year horizon period, and it was customary to treat that document as sacrosanct enough so that no one interferes with it, but that approach today must be revisited. Sooner it is acknowledged better cities will cope and perform in these changing times.
Author: Urban Tenets
Founder, Urban Tenets,
Netherlands
https://urbantenets.nl/
Image: Google Labs
hashtag#urbanmanagement hashtag#urbangovernance hashtag#smartcities hashtag#Netherlands hashtag#Amsterdam hashtag#Utrecht hashtag#Hague
To set a pretext, a hashtag#Vision2030 document published 5 to 10 years ago (in any domain) and to continue with that in toto, without factoring in hashtag#AI, which is a midway disruptive phenomenon, that too without a total grasp of its actual potential and impact; doesn’t make sense. Likewise, a Resilience Plan 2030 prepared in a pre-pandemic time or without accounting for a range of geopolitical shifts witnessed in recent and ongoing years, and continuing with the script in its original form doesn't make sense either. Similarly, half a decade or a decade-long rare drug discovery or targeted medicine development pathway approved in 2020, may witness a radical reduction in time due to the advent of AI, reducing years of trial, testing, and customization time to hours and minutes, hence requiring original pathways to be revisited.
Conventionally there is too much resistance and bureaucratic and legal hurdles present there by design, to make it nearly impossible to change or overhaul long-range vision documents, and action plans once published.
AI is just an example, too potent to ignore though; the cyclical period of disruptive innovations and socio-technological changes seem to be reducing and sometimes unpredictable, and such periods are bound to reduce if compared historically, due to unprecedented, exponential, and unfathomable technological advancement. The conventional approach of 10, 20, and 30-year-long, fairly rigid structures of plans and visions has to change. It has to be agile by design, it has to have inbuilt provisions for tweak, restructuring, and even overhaul, if required and this has to be done without fear of public criticism, and to be backed by science.
Every kind of projection based on which a long-range vision document and action plans are usually prepared must also be revisited periodically by embedded provisions, to reconsider and accommodate the known and perceptible impacts and opportunities that surface due to disruptive forces, often technological.
It was a norm 50 years ago, and was ok 5 years ago to prepare an urban development plan, economic plan, vision plan, etc for a 20 to 30-year horizon period, and it was customary to treat that document as sacrosanct enough so that no one interferes with it, but that approach today must be revisited. Sooner it is acknowledged better cities will cope and perform in these changing times.
Author: Urban Tenets
Founder, Urban Tenets,
Netherlands
https://urbantenets.nl/
Image: Google Labs
hashtag#urbanmanagement hashtag#urbangovernance hashtag#smartcities hashtag#Netherlands hashtag#Amsterdam hashtag#Utrecht hashtag#Hague
No comments:
Post a Comment